Can we have this conversation?

Off topic on my own thread, but...Remy, I don't understand why you'd think that the men with Geronimo were untrained. Indian warriors trained their entire lives, first off, living off the land was entirely natural to them. They usually begain their serious warrior training around the age of ten. Self-discipline was essential.They trained in stealth movement, camouflage, and how to kill with multiple weapons. The Apaches even had their own close grappling hand to hand combat system. It was learning to fight the way the Indians did that made America successful against Great Britain in the war of Independence. (Well that's not the only factor but it's a big one)

The fact that Geronimo and his men managed to maintain a running war against two armies at the same time (US & Mexico) is hardly a romantic notion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ole WV Coot

By the way TRAX you started this and are back up for adoption.

---

What?????? :eek: :eek: DAD!!! Nooooooooo!!!:(:( Quick someone close the thread before Dad throws my gear out the front door!

Trax...
Yes, they were hunter / gatherers, they knew the land.
What i mean is that (and it is on topic because of this) to both armies US and Mexico, they were "untrained". They did not fight a conventional war...They were UNTRAINED, which made them FREE to employ all of their resources.

Untrained is not a negative...to the contrary.
Untrained means wild, unconventional, unpredictable...and yes, the trained military learned from them.

Untrained pertains to mobs.
They too are wild, unconventional, and unpredictable.
Remember also the way Armies of the world use to fight at that time...they were certain protocols. A code of conduct. Rules. Soldiers were trained.
Does that make sense ?

Ridge...
The calculation depends on the individual.
It can be the calculation of personal harm...but it can also be the calculation of the individual's position within the herd. This position is mostly based on power or "personal power", but it can also be the calculation of an intellectual position.
The individual might start to question the idea itself, and calculate the risks against the idea. If i start calculating my chances of survival, i might start fearing possible outcomes yes ?
The problem here, is that the primary reason an individual will join a mob, IS a calculation to start with...i.e. in numbers, i have a better chance to survive, to get away with it, to not be singled out...etc.
In other words, fear, is almost always the initial motivation.

This fear can be, and most often is...fear of lacking.
Coot brings out this happening in his post about looters. Thousand of years of this fear, primarily the fear of lacking food, safety, power (represented today in objects such as electronics, cars, fancy clothes) etc...As long as some will be lacking, and some will be bathing in "too much", the have not will be opportunistic in their behavior. And what better way to do this than hidden in the middle of a mob, where the risks of getting caught are minimized.

But maybe we must understand violence...as whispered by Coot in his reference to some being animals.
Is nature "violent" ?

Wild and violent are not synonymous.
...Man is violent but not wild, unless he is primitive (Geronimo?), and only for a very few...the lion is wild, but not violent.
The term "wild" is synonymous with "free" (untrained), it is why what is "civilized" is neither wild nor free (lol), but this doesn't prevent it to possess many different sorts of dysfunction all more remarkable than the next.

So the question becomes, Are the conflicts animals participate in, to the death, containing a violent character ?
If we consider that violence is a trait of rapport between individuals, if we define it as something that exudes an aggressive form to an action put in place by an individual towards an other, then yes, nature is this ensemble of organized violence.

If i take a step back, and if i want to see that this organization of life consuming other lives is the only existing and perceptible condition on which all traces of life rests, here, i find myself saying it is beautiful, since without this law, this principle, nothing would exist but a massive desert.

I dare believe that Man, not in its entirety but in the presence of rare existing individuals, living today, or having lived since thousands of years, is the first animal that thought of, imagined, life functioning under a principle that is completely different...non-violence. To this day, non-violence (i talk here about the Christ's and not Ahimsa or Gandhi) must be declared "against-nature"...the world, our environment, does not authorize its explosion, its release in order to spark possibilities under laws not yet birthed by nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by remy

Trax...
Yes, they were hunter / gatherers, they knew the land.
What i mean is that (and it is on topic because of this) to both armies US and Mexico, they were "untrained". They did not fight a conventional war...They were UNTRAINED, which made them FREE to employ all of their resources.

Untrained is not a negative...to the contrary.
Untrained means wild, unconventional, unpredictable...and yes, the trained military learned from them.

Untrained pertains to mobs.
They too are wild, unconventional, and unpredictable.
Remember also the way Armies of the world use to fight at that time...they were certain protocols. A code of conduct. Rules. Soldiers were trained.
Does that make sense ?

---

The Indians were untrained because they were without formal training and probably lack the skills to become properly trained. The American's whipped the British not because they learned to fight like the Indians but because they eventually refused to fight a war of attrition with the British. The Brits could always form a longer line of troops.

Quote:

---

Ridge...
The calculation depends on the individual.
It can be the calculation of personal harm...but it can also be the calculation of the individual's position within the herd. This position is mostly based on power or "personal power", but it can also be the calculation of an intellectual position.
The individual might start to question the idea itself, and calculate the risks against the idea. If i start calculating my chances of survival, i might start fearing possible outcomes yes ?
The problem here, is that the primary reason an individual will join a mob, IS a calculation to start with...i.e. in numbers, i have a better chance to survive, to get away with it, to not be singled out...etc.
In other words, fear, is almost always the initial motivation.

This fear can be, and most often is...fear of lacking.
Coot brings out this happening in his post about looters. Thousand of years of this fear, primarily the fear of lacking food, safety, power (represented today in objects such as electronics, cars, fancy clothes) etc...As long as some will be lacking, and some will be bathing in "too much", the have not will be opportunistic in their behavior. And what better way to do this than hidden in the middle of a mob, where the risks of getting caught are minimized.

---

If a feller joins a mob it is because he miscalculated.

Quote:

---

But maybe we must understand violence...as whispered by Coot in his reference to some being animals.
Is nature "violent" ?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

]I dare believe that Man, not in its entirety but in the presence of rare existing individuals, living today, or having lived since thousands of years, is the first animal that thought of, imagined, life functioning under a principle that is completely different...non-violence.

---

Cows were here before we were and they ain't violent.

Quote:

---

To this day, non-violence (i talk here about the Christ's and not Ahimsa or Gandhi) must be declared "against-nature"...the world, our environment, does not authorize its explosion, its release in order to spark possibilities under laws not yet birthed by nature.

---

Anything that is a rebellion against nature is evil.

SR "and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ..."---Shakespeare

I'm trying (I'm not sure why) to assure you gentlemen that those warriors and not just Apache warriors, had very formal training. What skills would they be lacking to get formal training?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ole WV Coot

No it's not. I get wound up too easy I guess but TRAX is still up for adoption.:rolleyes:

---

TRAX IS NOT up for adoption,I've laid claim to him already!!!!!!!!!!!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nell67

TRAX IS NIT up for adoption,I've laid claim to him already!!!!!!!!!!!:D

---

babe, you just called me a nit, I think she meant not you guys...or I hope so, and the adoption thing, well I kinda adopted Coot as my Dad cuz I like his style, but he's ditching me ((shuddering sob))

But hey! You can comfort me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trax

babe, you just called me a nit, I think she meant not you guys...or I hope so, and the adoption thing, well I kinda adopted Coot as my Dad cuz I like his style, but he's ditching me ((shuddering sob))

But hey! You can comfort me!

---

Sorry about the nit thing darling,trying to type around the grandson and it isn't so easy,and you KNOW I will comfort you anyway you want....

I should probably blush for the benefit of anyone reading here, but..nahhhh, thanks honey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trax

SR "and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ..."---Shakespeare

---

Embrace reality or live a lie.

Quote:

---

I'm trying (I'm not sure why) to assure you gentlemen that those warriors and not just Apache warriors, had very formal training. What skills would they be lacking to get formal training?

---

They were trained to sneak around and attack people from behind in order to steal their things. They were never trained to be warriors. They were never taught to conquer an army just a weaker enemy. The fall under the same category as Alqeada and the Viet Cong.

Now back to your fairytale about Indian warriors in Freetraxistan.

As usual, your stupidity is only matched by your undying arrogance. For starters, sneaking around killing your enemies is warfare, smartboy, don't believe me? Ask a sniper.

And if that's all that Indians could do, how did Red Cloud manage to force the US army to abandon three forts in his territory which he subsequently burned to the ground after they left?

...and what happened to George Custer? 2000 Sioux and Cheyenne managed to sneak up on the 7th Cavalry and steal their things?

...and why is the US army's capture of Geronimo considered the most expensive undertaking in their history?

...and how did 85 Mohawk warriors stop 1700 American troops from landing in Ontario in the War of 1812
...Sneak around and steal from who? The million or so invaders who were stealing their country?

Oh yeah, and it's a good thing those sneak thieves were willing to help your great great grandfolks, or they would have all starved to death on the Atlantic seaboard

These are facts, not anything from any fairy tale world, certainly not from the fairy tale world of "being white must make everyone else inferior to me"

Ohhhhhh that's right, I forgot, all great men ARE bigots. Let's see, does that include Jesus Christ? Mohatma Gandhi?

You're a sad man.

nim wit dim wit nit wit? isn't the search for osama the most expensive in history, shoot wait till they have to look for me, sam i see ya biting fishing and nibbling hows that working out for ya.

You could be right on that WE, but at the time it was written the authors had used this formula that was kind of a cost/benefit analysis, what resources were thrown into it for what accomplished? Based on that it cost more than the wars did, and the US has seen a few wars.

Ok.. thanks.

Here I go again. Nell you can keep him for awhile and if I remember correctly the Apache were taught almost from birth. If a child crawled toward a fire he wasn't stopped, he got burned and learned from that moment on didn't have to be told. They were conditioned to live in a harsh area where you learned to be "more animal" than the animal to survive. No mercy, their reward was to live another day. The VC improvised which kinda scared some people. Their tunnel system scared a lot of Americans but not all. We have men that worked in mines 3' high and I could touch each side at the same time a mile or so under so we could beat them at their own game. We had our hands tied, but like the Apache it sure is tough to whip a dog in his own back yard. If you are allowed to fight their way and forget you're "civilized" you have a chance. otherwise you ain't nothing but a short memory.

Custer's famous last words: "Indians? If there's Indians at the Little Big Horn I'll stand right there and let 'em shoot me."

Custer's famous last words: "They want a fight? I'll turn this place into a cemetery!"

Custer's famous last words: "Let's see...it was one if by land....no, that's not right. Two if by land. Dang it! Anyone know what the signal was?"

Custer's famous last words: "It's point, squeeze, bang. Point, squeeze, bang. Can't you do anything right?"

Custer's famous last words: "#*%! This has got to be against some kind of treaty!"

"The Indians were untrained because they were without formal training and probably lack the skills to become properly trained."
Sam.

What ?
I know people here are smart enough to realize that this is NOT what i meant.
But i guess...you are a good representation of the views and the understanding of the "white man" of the time, concerning what and who native Americans were. They were "untrained", because they did not want to become like "you"...
As for lacking skills to become "properly trained", it is the opposite...they had too many skills to become "properly tamed".


"If a feller joins a mob it is because he miscalculated."
Sam.

Why not.


"Cows were here before we were and they ain't violent."
Sam.

lolll...You think of violence as Man often does...simplistically. I said, Man, is the first animal that thought of, imagined, life functioning under a principle that is completely different. I doubt cows think about concepts and principles yes ?
You are here confusing violence as a principle of nature, with the role of preys and predators within this principal. A cow is a prey, and it has many predators...the rapport between the two is by nature...violent.

"Anything that is a rebellion against nature is evil."
Sam.

Then The Christ is evil by your definition.
Along with a very few other men...
It is fascinating to think that nature, which we spend so much time defending, and therefore the principle organizing it...violence...could be abandoned for other possibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Reeves

They were trained to sneak around and attack people from behind in order to steal their things. They were never trained to be warriors. They were never taught to conquer an army just a weaker enemy. The fall under the same category as Alqeada and the Viet Cong.

---

you've been watiching too many anti-indian westerns from the 40's and 50's
IMO, the Viet Cong were one of the most formidable guerrilla forces of this century

do you really think there are " play fair " rules in warfare - no kicking/hair-pulling

anything to win

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trax

As usual, your stupidity is only matched by your undying arrogance. For starters, sneaking around killing your enemies is warfare, smartboy, don't believe me? Ask a sniper.

---

By that standard every decent deer hunter is warrior

Quote:

---

And if that's all that Indians could do, how did Red Cloud manage to force the US army to abandon three forts in his territory which he subsequently burned to the ground after they left?

...and what happened to George Custer? 2000 Sioux and Cheyenne managed to sneak up on the 7th Cavalry and steal their things?

---

Custer should have used some recon. His folly doesn't equate the nomads being great warriors

Quote:

---

...and why is the US army's capture of Geronimo considered the most expensive undertaking in their history?

---

Heck, what about Osoma.

Quote:

---

...and how did 85 Mohawk warriors stop 1700 American troops from landing in Ontario in the War of 1812

---

To be honest I'm not familial with this event.

Quote:

---

...Sneak around and steal from who? The million or so invaders who were stealing their country?

---

The Indians were a nomadic people who never settled anything for more than 400 years. Some of the land was bought most of it was took. Life isn't fair.

Quote:

---

Oh yeah, and it's a good thing those sneak thieves were willing to help your great great grandfolks, or they would have all starved to death on the Atlantic seaboard

---

I guess that is what happens when you send a bunch of merchants into the wilderness. In this case some of my ancestors stole a bunch of seeds the Indians had buried. What do you want me to say?

Quote:

---

These are facts, not anything from any fairy tale world, certainly not from the fairy tale world of "being white must make everyone else inferior to me"

---

This is your assumption about me.

Quote:

---

Ohhhhhh that's right, I forgot, all great men ARE bigots. Let's see, does that include Jesus Christ? Mohatma Gandhi?

---

Well, Jesus was definitely a bigot and is considered an anti-semite by todays standards. What was so great about Gandhi?

Quote:

---

You're a sad man.

---

I'm a very happy man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wareagle69

sam i see ya biting fishing and nibbling hows that working out for ya.

---

biting fishing and nibbling? Is that some slang for something?